User talk:ErgoSum88/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

What the hell?

Care to explain what this was all about? Iridescent : Chat 15:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm just as surprised as you are. Must've been an errant mouseclick, perhaps I wasn't paying attention, I have no idea. But I apologize, it was an accident. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem – these things happen. (After what happened to Lara earlier today when an April Fool got out of hand, I wanted to make sure this wasn't something similar.)Iridescent : Chat 16:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Email

Ergosum, Want to send me an email (it's enabled on my userpage). There's more I'd like to say, but would rather not post it in a public forum. Dave (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I would, but I can't seem to find it. I don't see any email links on your userpage. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If you allow people to send you email (in your user preferences) the email user link appears under the "toolbox" section the left pain of the wikipedia page. Or you can just do this Special:EmailUser/Davemeistermoab, but again, the user has to opt to receive email, which I have.Dave (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Popular Culture articles by importance

I notice that this category you created is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted without discussion, in accordance with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. I'm notifying you in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding [[Category:Popular Culture articles by importance]] to pages that belong in it.

I tagged the category. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of tagging and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to remove the tag if you wish. However, removing the tag will not prevent deletion of the category if it remains empty.

If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with {{db-author}}.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 04:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

GA reviews

Please transclude the review page onto the talk page when you are done with your review. Also, please be careful; another user has some concerns with the quality of your reviews. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been transcluding the reviews when I'm done with them. It seems Gimmebot removes them when it updates the articlehistory. I have been very careful to transclude the reviews on every article. On another note, regarding TMF's disagreement with my decision... upon second thought maybe he is right. Perhaps I shouldn't have passed it, but everyone makes mistakes. I was too busy analyzing what was there, I failed to notice what wasn't there (the history of NY 314). But the way he went about was rude and inconsiderate, so I chose not to address him directly and basically told him to go complain about it to someone else. I suppose he did just that. So my question to you is, how can I make this right? Should I go back, and re-submit my review? I'm not sure what the precendent is regarding this type of thing. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the reviews thing is Gimmebot's fault - I apologize for that. I'll take a look at the reviews thing later (gotta run). --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

My "inconsiderate" comment stems from the fact that I've seen a high amount of sub-par road-related articles be passed by GA reviewers in recent months. And when they're brought to GAR, no one sees any reason to demote them. Thus, I have no intention of "complaining" to "someone else"; I've written GA off as a lost cause. – T M F 16:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps your standards for a "good article" are higher than most. I have made every effort to educate myself with regard to the MOS, but I have not focused so much on the guidelines for road-related article because frankly, I have other interests and not enough time. If you have issues with any of the other articles I have promoted to GA-status lately, please let me know. I appreciate constructive criticism. But when you have a review system that depends entirely upon one user's opinion, then of course there are going to be disagreements. But thats why its called "good" article and not "excellent" article. If you've read a lot of the articles on WP, you know that most of them are mish-mashed, typo-ridden, atrocities totally devoid of citations. My impression of the whole "good article" project, was to recognize those articles (and authors) which actually bothered to follow the MOS and include references to back up their claims, nothing more, nothing less. The GA requirements state "A good article must be reasonably well written; a featured article must have a professional standard of writing" and "A featured article must be comprehensive; a good article must be broad." I was under the impression that State Route 314 (New York – Vermont) met these criteria (besides the obvious omittance of the history of NY 314, I am only human, people make mistakes. Honestly, I had noticed that it was missing, but I got distracted with other things and forgot about it.). Other than that, is there anything else in the article that leads you to believe it doesn't deserve the GA promotion? I seriously would like to know, so perhaps I can be a better reviewer. On another note, I apologize if my response to your objection was rude. We are all volunteers here, doing a thankless, tedious job that can sometimes feel like a second job without the benefits. Sometimes I wonder why there is so much tension around here and it makes me want to just delete my userpage and forget this place. But I'm such a dork that I can't help but spend my free time typing about bridge formulas, dinosaur diamonds, and trees with funny names. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: 314

I just saw that, I have the info already, meanwhile, it can be fixed :P - I just overlooked it.Mitchazenia : Chat Trained for the pen 00:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I suppose this is a lesson learned for me. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Longevity myths/Longevity claims discussion

Greetings,

Many of the regular editors to these articles are busy with "final exams week." You seem reasonable but impressionable. Let me just say that my first goal is to educate. I would take it that with a moniker such as "ergo sum" you would be seeking for logical explanations of things. Much of what you or JJ said is flat-out wrong, in a sort of elementary school vs. professor sort of way...it's so amateur as to raise the issue of "why are we discussing this." However, I am not one to believe that those in the know should be too lofty to be reachable. It's not simply your views on longevity "myths" that is off; your understanding of evolution is as well. Evolution is NOT a "story" to describe how humans came from "monkeys" millions of years ago. I would highly recommend you read these articles first before continuing in discussions about evolution:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/science/11gene.html

The basic major premises:

1. Homo sapiens emerged circa 160,000 years ago (perhaps 200,000) but not 500,000 years ago 2. Evolution continues to this day, with or without natural selection 3. Species in isolation (such as islands) have evolved longer lifespans when there are no natural predators 4. These changes are gradual, however, and should have little bearing on articles on longevity that deal with primarily the last 10,000 years. 5. That doesn't mean that "evolution stopped"...it means that the changes are small enough not to be our primary focus.

After that, we can discuss the ideas that surround human longevity and evolution.

Ryoung122 06:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I should be offended at your insinuations, let me explain.

I was speaking of archaic Homo sapiens, the earliest ancestors of modern humans... regardless, 500,000 is much closer to the actual date than a million.
I never said evolution has "stopped", I am well aware that it continues to this day, thank you. I have no idea why you think that I think evolution has stopped.
I never said evolution was a "a story to describe how humans came from monkeys millions of years ago". I said evolution is a theory to describe how different species come about. The traits of those species can be described in evolutionary terms, yes. But the point that me and JJB were aruging over was the wording of a certain sentence. With the point that he was trying to make, it was wrong to use the word "evolution". Evolution can explain why one creature has a longer lifespan than the other, but it does not explain why human life expectancy has gone up or down in the last 10,000 years, right?
My point exactly.
See point #2.

My suggestion to you is to be a little less arrogant. Comments such as "you need to read up on recent (last 20 years) evolutionary theory before making comments such as these" when you clearly did not understand the point of our debate makes you seem like the ignorant one. Perhaps you should go back and read why we were making those points before accusing someone of being ignorant.

Now... as far as discussing human longevity, I have no interest in editing that article. I try stay away from controversial articles, because there is waaay too much drama surrounding them. But as you can see, I can't help but be drawn into the discussion sometimes, and I feel as if I should correct people when I see they are making a simple mistake. I'm not there to push any agenda, or to try and balance the article in favor of "my side". I simply show up when there are minor disagreements and I try to keep the silly posturing to a minimum. Too many arrogant pricks think it is fun to start flamewars over controversial subjects, and I am not one of them. If the article has anything to do with sexual ethics, religion, evolution, or any other kind of controversial claims, then I keep my involvement to a minimum. I spend too much time and effort just editing articles about dry facts that are concrete and verifiable, I couldn't imagine the amounts of (valuable) time I would waste fighting over topics such as abortion or longevity myths.

So... if you some ideas about human longevity, perhaps I am not the one to discuss them with. If you would like to "teach" me about evolution, thanks but no thanks. I have filled my head with enough informaton regarding the theory to know that I believe in it, you're preaching to the choir. I am interested in following recent developments regarding evolution, so thank you for the link to the NY times story. But anyone worth their salt knows that evolution hasn't just stopped in the last 10,000 years. The question is, how fast does it work? Does it work in quick spurts (Punctuated equilibrium)? Or long and slow (Phyletic gradualism)? Or a combiation both(Punctuated gradualism)? Or does it depend on the species(Quantum evolution)? I could debate with myself (and you) all day here, but I think that is best left to the experts. You may be an expert, and I would be glad to spend any free time discussing these things with you. But please, try to be a little more considerate before accusing editors of being ignorant. Thanks. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

ErgoSum, I'm glad to read your above commentary, clearly I misjudged you. Anyone can have a bad day.

In regards to "Localchurch"...what is that saying about glass houses and stones? "Localchurch" is a single-issue, POV editor whose mission has been to denigrate the "local church" (which he was expelled from 20+ years ago). Speaking of "mean," "Localchurch" has continued to put down dead men based on personal vendettas/experiences. Also, he has been asked NOT to comment on my talk page, yet he continues to do so (a violation of Wiki-etiquette, if not policy). The main problem with him is that he presumes that his way of thinking about religion and spirituality is the one that everyone should follow. Even his comment that I think I am "God's gift to Wikipedia" is off-base: that presumes that I think there is a God, or god for the athiests. He knows nothing about me. But I must ask: what do the local church articles have to do with human longevity articles? Clearly, Localchurch is little more than a STALKER and someone needs to do something, as his Wiki-stalking my talk page should not be allowed to continue.

Sorry for the lack of sugar-coating, but this is not the first time that I have asked this editor to not engage me. Again, he does not edit the articles commented on (longevity), so clearly he does not belong in the discussion.

Sincerely Robert Young Ryoung122 07:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I understand that sometimes (especially on the internet) words can sound offensive or denigrating when they were not intended to be. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the favorable review and promotion of Nevada State Route 375 to GA status. It was my first GA. --LJ (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Case of the Hooded Man

Hi, ErgoSum -- thanks for giving a second opinion at Case of the Hooded Man. I don't think it's appropriate, given my contributions, for me to pass the article, so I would appreciate it if you would officially pass (or fail) it. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I just dropped by to say the same thing; thanks for your work :). Ironholds (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Longevity folklore

Please comment about the compromise title longevity folklore (for the longevity myths or longevity narratives article), at Talk:Longevity narratives#Discussion toward consensus. This message is being copied to 4 people. Thank you. JJB 22:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

GA synthetic diamond

Thank you for taking the GA review assignment and first comments. I have changed the article accordingly and replied at Talk:Synthetic_diamond/GA1. Please note that I haven't written the article, only patched it. The area used to me my major for years, and thus normally I should not spend more than few hours on patching (your GA comments came in a bad day, therefore this late reply). Best regards. NIMSoffice (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Not so much for passing GAN, but rather for your handling GA review and help with that article.NIMSoffice (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii hotspot

Talk:Hawaii hotspot/GA1. ResMar 23:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you please respond now? i think I've adressed some of the issues. ResMar 19:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Now, where did I get too deep? No need to get into an argument, man. ResMar 22:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Your GA reviewing

Thank you for your GA reviewing, but please remember to list the article passed on WP:GA after you have passed them. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ick, sorry, I always forget to do that. Is there not a bot that could do that sort of tedious work for us? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately not :/ Dabomb87 (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You could write one. ResMar 16:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Dinosaur Diamond and Four Corners

Hey, I see you're hard at work getting the article up to GA. Is there still anything you wanted me to do? Sorry, I got majority distracted. I don't know if you heard, but about 3 weeks ago a bunch of incorrect news stories ran about how the Four Corners Monument was misplaced by 2.5 miles. The irony is I think that monument is the most overrated tourist attraction in the west, and would only recommend visiting it if you're going to be in the area anyways. But for some odd reason I felt compelled to defend it. Anyways the article got trashed, with everybody rushing to "be the first" to put in wikipedia the monument was misplaced, without ever checking the edit history and seeing the 500 reverts an hour on that article. =-) It was amazing, after about 6 -8 hours after the stories ran, some anonymous editor (whom I still don't know his identity) helped me and we got the article well cited, to the Supreme Court, US law, and articles about the monument by people who are professional surveyors. Yet, the idiots kept coming. Even with all that, someone tried put into the article that the monument was actually entirely in Arizona. I ripped some people some new ones on their talk pages with "you really trust that bimbo on CNN over 10,000 surveyers and the US Supreme Court? and "Trust me. I've gotten speeding tickets in all 4 of the four corners states, plus the Navajo Nation. The monument road is in New Mexico, not Arizona". Anyways, after the AP issued a retraction things settled down and I decided that between me and this anon, we got a pretty solid article (to be fair the article was in error before the news stories ran two, so everybody, including myself learned form it). So that' my GA nomination. But it's paused, so I can help. How's the nomination going? Dave (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, yeah I heard about that. But I never heard about the retraction (go figure, do you ever?). As far as DDSB goes, it has improved. I've added summaries of histories of the routes, and I've thoroughly sourced the route description. The review is being handled by Mitch, and he wants to know the history of the formation of the scenic byway. I've searched high and low on google, and I've found nothing, nada. I keep getting reports on when the byway was officially designated, what the conditions are to be considered and nominated to be a scenic byway, and an assload of travel sites and blogs... but no history. I'm not sure it exists. Hopefully I can convince him that the information would probably be a non-issue anyway, because these things are normally handled by DOTs and tourism boards, and would probably not be very informative or interesting even if the information was available. But you have more experience with road article than I do, is there another source I'm not aware of? I've tried every combination of search option with google. On another note, I've been doing a lot of GA reviews myself. Which is helpful when trying to write your own GA, because you realize how easy it is to spot errors in other articles, while you might have overlooked such errors in your own article. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately my experience has been the same as yours. The documentation on Scenic designations is not as available or complete as the documentation on the numerical designations. As far as I know it is a committee of people (not even necessarily a government organization) that fills the application and justifies that the highway meets the criteria. I have come across on UDOT's website some scanned letters from businesses that would benefit from a scenic highway designation petitioning that a highway be named, but have not found any related to the Dinosaur Diamond byway. I'm looking. If I find a gem I'll let you know.Dave (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, give me a link. Maybe I can use it to say something about the history, other than just the date that it was designated. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, don't think it will help your efforts, but on pages 23 and 24 of this pdf (which is the legislative history file for SR-666 (US-666) [1] For the record, the highways mentioned were later adopted into the Trail of the Ancients Scenic Byway.Dave (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

(de indent) If you want to read more of those, here is the index page [2] Dave (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I thought it was something about the DDSB. I don't think these will help. But thanks anyway! --ErgoSum|talk|trib 22:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A bit of confusion

I told you not to be exact! There are hundreds of volcanic cones in the chain. Kilauea alone has 16. ResMar 22:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well I suppose only one of them has an article about it then. Anyway, no harm, I see you fixed it. Sorry about that. As soon as these last issues are taken care of, I believe the article is ready to be passed. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: GA sweeps

I took a look at your previous GA reviews and found them to be of high standards. Basically, the sweeps is to revisit GAs that are promoted a long time ago and check to see whether the quality of the article continues to meet current criteria. Check here for instructions on how to review the articles. That section also contains a few handy templates that you may find it very useful. This list contains all the articles that have yet to be reviewed (unless it's on hold). And finally, to ensure transparency, accountability, and easier management in the process, participants are asked to list the articles they reviewed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps/Running total. Just remember not to be too tough on enforcing MoS in articles because this is GA, not FA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Diamond Dinosaur Scenic Byway

Well, off the top:

Flow sucks
The entire process detailing any byway is unnecessary. Check the Federal or Utah State laws, news and other things to detail that.
Too many subheaders.
Try to prove that all these roads intertwine.

So far those are a big issue, I would suggest a total rewrite.3 1/2 years of Mitch 32 23:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment about Longevity Myths article

My main concern is that JJBulten has labelled items "original research" when, in fact, substantial research has been published in this field. As you mentioned, Javier Pereira was on a postage stamp in Colombia, but since he never heard of him, it must be "made up." This kid has a complex...his version of events borders on WP:OWN and if he hasn't heard of something, it must not exist...nonsense. As I pointed out, there were multiple journal citations of "longevity myth" that existed before I even came along, or Wikipedia existed.

However, he has recently shown faint signs of compromise, but it seems it takes overwhelming effort to get him to start with the least controversial edits first, so we can come to an agreement on something. I believe the whole point of consensus and compromise is that each side (in theory) has something to contribute, and if so then the article would be better when it takes the best of each. I've already agreed to allow his pictures, king lists, etc. My main opposition was his ORIGINAL RESEARCH reordering of the article into his own categories. I'll have to check today's compromise version to see if it is better.

Personally, I don't think I've acted childish at all, nor am I wrong about any of the points I made. My thesis didn't win the national award for nothing:

http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwger/6113.html

However, I must laugh at the assertion that I have a financial interest in this...clearly JJ Bulten is uninformed if he thinks this is going to make me a lot of money. Sure, I got a scholarship for this, but it's hardly a huge amount and having this on Wikipedia makes no difference. Also, the "longevity myths" section of my thesis was merely the precursor (background information), not the main point (which is that although African-Americans didn't live as long as the ages claimed in mythology such as "Charlie Smith and the Fritter Tree", they did have a higher life expectancy at age 110 than their Caucasian-American counterparts).

The real points of the "longevity myths" article are, at the core:

A. longevity myths have been universal across cultures

B. extreme ages claimed have been higher in the past, especially when associated with religion

C. the myths of longevity have died out in places where firm recordkeeping exists. For example, England had claims such as Thomas Parr, 152, in the 1600s but no such claims have existed once compulsory birth registration combined with compulsory education to basically eradicate any room for these myths to exist. Therefore, they died out.

D. motivations for extreme age claims are various. The point of the subcategories was to discuss those that are a product of a larger cultural rationale, such as religious myth, nationalist myth, the idea that people live longer in the mountains, the idea that people live longer in certain hideaway places, the idea that people live longer if they can just drink some "holy water" or eat "hunza bread" (sounds like quackery, etc.

These all differ significantly from the point of "longevity claims," which was intended to focus on non-mythical causes of longevity exaggeration: as JJBulten has pointed out himself, namesaking (Pierre Joubert Sr was born in 1701; Pierre Joubert Jr died in 1814; the age claim of 113 was based on a mistake), pension fraud, etc. In other words, not all extreme age claims are motivated by mythology. However, there is an overlap: even though Pierre Joubert's claim was a paper error, some of the writings of the Quebec investigators in the 1878 Tache investigation thought that he was an example of French-Canadian longevity (an ethnic pride longevity myth). Thus, the claim itself may have been a mistake, but it became incorporated into myth. This was also true with the "last Confederate veterans" of the 1950s, where pension-fraud claims became recast as "proof" that Southerners lived longer. Later investigations showed that the claims were wholly false (Walter Williams was 105, not 117; John Salling was 101, not 112, etc.)

Sincerely Robert Young

Comment about JJ Bulten

Greetings,

I would like to mention that I added 0% of the "OR" tags and thus am innocent. I realize that when someone is trying to find a compromise, it is easier to blame "both sides" for a conflict. However, on closer inspection, I would be willing to bet that a judge or jury would find that I am arguing on the merits of the Wiki-policies and outside sources, while JJB is using scorched-Earth tactics. Please consider this example:

   The evidence does not favor backing off from requesting a move, for compliance's sake, in some other polite way. First, the "vote" remains 6-4 by my count: no consensus. Second, your unsourced statement of thousands of "longevity myths" cites is probably a Google exaggeration based on estimated mirrors; see above where I sourced the real numbers as 92 vs. 91. Third, this exaggeration only reflects the fact that a vast number of "myth" mirrors stem from Ryoung's wholly unsourced 2005 insertions. (The User:Shii/Hoaxes page normally considers this as evidence of hoaxing. See User talk:Shii/Hoaxes#Longevity, ticklish situation for 26 phrases originating from Ryoung that have exactly zero Google support outside his 2005 insertions.)

           Yet another FALSE accusation. There is no "hoaxing" here at all, nor has there been any attempt at "hoaxing." I am not responsible for third-party sites, but if they choose to copy my work, might it be because they consider it a reliable source?Ryoung122 21:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

               Comment: Looking closer, we see that it was JJB that listed this as a "hoax":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shii/Hoaxes#Longevity.2C_ticklish_situation

Citation of one's own accusation is a circular argument, and thus invalid.

In other words, JJBulten first adds material to Shi's page then cites his own add as "proof" of hoaxing. Actually, it's only proof of his fanaticism, of hitting 'below the belt' in an attempt to radically remake this page in his own image.Ryoung122 21:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ergo, I am following Ryoung122's edits to determine when he is speaking about me to others. As you may know, a readable version of the above, along with the reasons Ryoung122's hasty conclusion is faulty, appears at Talk:Longevity myths#JJB to Anthony and Ergo. JJB 01:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Peer review/Hawaii hotspot/archive1. Happy editing ResMar 23:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Captions

Technically a caption (e. g. Brighton Pier) is a sentence and so needs a full stop.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk).

Hello ErgoSum. In case you hadn't noticed, the above user has created the discussion page User talk:ErgoSum88/Bio. BarretBonden (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed, but it looks like it was a mistake. I think he was trying to leave me a message but clicked on the bio discussion page instead. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Route 9 in New York GA delisting

Ah, well. I was a bit leery of the original listing anyway since it was passed by one of the other USRD editors, even though I was proud of the work I had done on it. Standards were a little looser then. And I still don't consider the article adequately illustrated.

You probably delisted it for the right reasons, the reasons I would have expected. I would quibble with the bit about the Spanish-language ads not being sourced, though ... the picture of the Dyckman Street intersection shows some Spanish ads, and per WP:OI that counts as sourcing (although, to be honest, it would be better with an image taken further south in Hudson Heights, where there's more Spanish than English on the signs).

Unlike New Coke, I could probably address those issues with a day or two of work on the article. Thanks, BTW, for restoring the pics to thumb size ... I like them better where I've got them set at 300px, but I deferred to another editor who felt that anything higher than 150px crowded stuff on his monitor. (And at 200 squeezed grafs are less likely). Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, how is it that you found the intro too short? I was actually worried about it getting too long when I originally wrote it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well I don't doubt that the spanish-language ads are there, just that the article states these ads "testifies to the heavy Latin American immigrant population in the area", which would need to be sourced through census records. For an article of this size, there should be more information within the intro. Of course, these things are always subjective, and another editor might think the intro is just right. But one thing that is missing from the intro is a summary of the history. This is what I based the "too short" evaluation on. I generally find that 90% of articles are deficient in two areas, the length of the introduction, and citations. Many editor spend so much time on the main body of the article, they neglect to work on the introduction, which really should be the best part of the article, seeing as how the casual reader may only read this section, and then skim over the photos (which is a reason why I stress proper image placement and interesting captions), before moving on.

Do you agree with the assessment about the length? I do realize this is a pretty long road, and many route descriptions follow a turn-by-turn format. But for long routes, this can lead to description bloat, which doesn't make for a very good read. My suggestion would be to drop some of the minor turn-by-turn content, but it would be ok to keep some of the turn-by-turn content which follows the route through major cities. Really the only problem you want to avoid is overwhelming the reader with too many details, this is what turned me off. Thats my two cents. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There wasn't much in the history section when I wrote most of it, and that section has largely been the province of other USRD editors who are more into that than I am. They've done all the expansion (especially when NYSR decided that not all suffixed routes of Route 9 deserved their own articles, particularly the decommissioned ones, therefore throwing most of that stuff back in), and I haven't updated the intro since then (I find that when you really pour yourself into an article to get it to where you feel comfortable taking it to, say, GA, you feel drained and it takes a lot to motivate yourself to go back to taking it to the next level after a break. I have a couple of GAs that probably could be updated to FA candidates but I just don't feel like, you know, going back there yet).

In other words, I see what you mean about the intro.

Detail bloat was a problem. I have gone through the NYC and Westchester sections and already trimmed a few things. Over time I have sometimes added links to articles about various NRHP listings along the road, mainly so those articles would have inbound links from somewhere other than the relevant NRHP list. Some could stay (Indian Brook Road Historic District and Old Albany Post Road are historically relevant) but not all. I also see some of my first-draft prose still there.

I have sourced the Villa Lewaro sentence, and there are plenty of sources for the ethnic composition of Hudson Heights in that article and Washington Heights. I also decided to stack the images in that part of the article

I am happy that you see these as resolvable problems; maybe we can get this back to GA soon. However, I'm not considering an FA nom until I get the pics from north of Saratoga that I said I wanted on the talk page ... as it is the section south of Albany is well-represented, so much so that the north of Albany deserves equal treatment. Maybe I can do that this summer. We'll see. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

About sourcing... if you make a statement in one article, just because it is sourced in another article does not mean you do not have to source it in yours. Providing a wikilink to Hudson Heights is not a reliable source. It is easy enough to "borrow" the citation from the wikilinked article, and simply copy and paste it into yours. Each article must stand on its own, with all the proper citations, and must not rely upon other wikipedia articles as a "source", so to speak. There are many cases where the article may be using unreliable sources, or the link may be dead, or they may have even used a source which does not even support the statement that has been made. It is essential that you check the source for the claim made in other articles, and then you may use it in your own. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps June update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 396 articles were swept in May! That more than doubles our most successful month of 163 swept articles in September 2007 (and the 2 articles swept in April)! I plan to be sending out updates at the beginning of each month detailing any changes, updates, or other news until Sweeps are completed. So if you get sick of me, keep reviewing articles so we can be done (and then maybe you'll just occasionally bump into me). We are currently over 60% done with Sweeps, with just over a 1,000 articles left to review. With over 40 members, that averages out to about 24 articles per person. If each member reviews an article a day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. I know that may be asking for a lot, but it would allow us to complete Sweeps and allow you to spend more time writing GAs, reviewing GANs, or focusing on other GARs (or whatever else it is you do to improve Wikipedia) as well as finish ahead of the two-year mark coming up in August. I recognize that this can be a difficult process at times and appreciate your tenacity in spending time in ensuring the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Dinosaur Diamond Scenic Byway

Howdy, Like always I'm probably too late. But I finally found something you could actually use... [3] has some pretty good info on most Colorado Highways, although to find the nuggets I've needed I've had to search on cities and geographical features, as the book more often than not refers to roads by there original names, rather than present numbers. One nugget I've found interesting is CDOT already plans to submit various engineering feats on I-70 to the National Register of Historic Places, even though the freeway won't be eligible for decades. I've recently included some nuggets on I-70 in CO (how I found this book) and included some nuggets in the history section.Dave (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Dough4872 (talk) has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made him happy and he'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Re:Msg

Thanks for taking recognition for my work! As for helping with Glossary of trucking industry terms in the United States, I really do not have too much knowledge on the trucking industry, but I could try to find some sources if I have the time. Meanwhile, I have been busy working with road articles at WP:USRD. I am participating in a contest called the County challenge where I am trying to get a GA for a road in every county in Maryland, here is my list. Since you seem to have an interest in roads, you may want to join the U.S. Roads WikiProject. We could use your help! Dough4872 (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have an interest in editing and reviewing them, but creating new ones is tedious! I created Colorado State Highway 64 and DDSB, and added photos to Interstate 70 in Utah and Colorado, but haven't really done much else. I'll do what I can, I'm practically part of the Project I just don't have a userbox saying it. I've had difficulty with DDSB because there is no precedent for this type of article for me to follow. I attempted to follow the roads format, but it didn't turn out well and failed GA. Other users said at PR that I should change the layout and focus on other aspects of the area instead of just the roads. PR turned out well, but I haven't been able to implement them because I'm too busy with Hawaii hotspot, which will be nominated for FA in the near future. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 22:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ford Taurus GA

I have started some basic maintainence on the Ford Taurus article. If you can name some specific of what you mean as "Trivia creep", I will remove it. Karrmann (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for your comprehensive reviews on WP:CARS articles (and all others). This really filters out the poor quality GAs that are improperly maintained after good article status is given. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry about the pixel mix-up. Seems like every project has its own standards, but now that I know I will stop changing the lead images from 250 to 300. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 15:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No problems, it's no "set-in-stone" standard, but an unwritten de facto standard that seems to prevail. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi. Just curious, have you ever considered running for adminship? I think you'd be an excellent candidate personally. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, especially with the number of edits I've made lately. But it sounds like just more work, and I like to focus on improving articles... not getting into lengthy debates about how to organize crap. I know its more than that but I don't think I want to deal with the extra responsibility. Thank you for noticing tho, usually you have to ask someone to review your contributions. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I understand. Thanks for the reply. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing FAC

I responded to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oklahoma City bombing/archive1. Thanks for taking the time to review the article, and let me know if you spot anything else. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Was there anything else the article needs to gain your support? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)